While I agree we cannot restore nature back to pre-European settlement condition we are smart enough to know single threaded management for a species is not valid. That's why fisheries conservation has turned to watershed conservation instead of just stream improvement projects. Management of land animals has also turned to ecosystem management instead of providing some food plots. Riparian zones and open space amount to habitat. With the habitat you provide not only for your target game species but also thousands of other critters benefit as well predator and prey. If we provide space and conditions, nature can manage better than we can. The ecosystem can actually thrive given a chance. We are an arrogant species. We tend to believe we can do better than nature. We can't. If we allow nature a chance we will be able to fish & hunt w/o worrying about managing and jacking up wildlife populations.

So our environment in PA is irreversebly changed. So if a stream is already somewhat polluted we shouldn't try to restore it? In the 1970's you couldn't catch a striper or anything else anywhere near Philly. The Delaware River around Philly was an ecologically dead zone. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and other legislation today you can catch stripers all the up to the falls at Trenton - and other fish and aquatic species have benefitted immensely.

To answer your question, we all benefit (man and wildlife) from a healthier environment. The broader the approch the better.

Well, I agree with a broader approach, and that we have been a little too narrow minded in the past (and still are, but not as much as before). I would argue that this is just man figuring out a better way to do what they've been trying to do all along. The reasons haven't changed, it was, and still is, for the betterment of humans. What has changed is the methods, and they continue to evolve.

Consider that our definition of a healthy habitat is created by humans, based on what we think is best for our own long-term interests. Nature could really care less whether there's 10 mayfly species in a stream or over 100.

There are a lot of contradictory statements in your philosophy. You talk about creating and restoring habitat, and then argue that nature does better than man. It's man thats creating and restoring (actually, improving, not restoring) that habitat. Nature has no "preferred state", it is based on what would happen with the current status quo if man were not to intercede. You also argue that we could hunt and fish without worrying about jacking up wildlife populations. Generally, fishing and especially hunting regulations are designed to do the exact opposite, to prevent overpopulation.

When we "restore" a watershed, we are not restoring it to its former self, too much has changed to do that. Our forests are different, the animal species are different. It is quite certain that it would never return to its former self even in thousands of years, much less on a time scale we can observe. We are attempting to improve the habitat from its current self from the point of view of mankind, not restore it to a former self. More often than not, when we percieve an improvement, it is due to human intervention, not nature "fixing" itself, because nature doesn't see itself as broken.

As for preventative actions, like the Clean Water Act, they are efforts to change the manner of man's impact so that our resources are more beneficial to man. Typically that impact is just put onto something else, for instance containing, transporting, and storing waste rather than putting it into a stream has its own detrimental impacts. If we deem the new situation better, then the effort succeeded.

reds wrote:[quote]albud1962 wrote:"We've been seeing herons everywhere we go," says Beth Fife. "The expanding population is really due to better water quality, more abundance of wetlands, everything."

Well yes and no. I think the Herons have discovered welfare in the form of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Think of it as unwed Heron mothers and trout welfare babies. As far as conservative bashing, please take a look how our illustrious liberal governor is selling our wild areas to the Oil and gas developers. I have a feeling we aren't going to fare any better with any administration. So whether the trib is conservative or the post gazette is liberal...

Albud, no offense, but your facts are way off base. As in DC, Harrisburg republicans are in with the gas and oil companies and it is the Republicans pushing for the lease of all DCNR lands over the next three years, not Ed Rendell. This is terrible for both the state and private landowners as it will put a tremendous amount of land on the market at once causing a decline in what landowners receive. Additionally, the DEP has yet to catch up with the land being developed right now. I don't care for Rendell, personally, but his only push with the Marcellus development was to tax it, something that the republican led legislature stopped, I wonder why?

On the topic of herons sure they eat some fish, but like several others have said the numbers of herons are dictated by the availibility of food if there is nothing else causing the population to drop.

Well the Governor and the state house are democrats, and many of the Governor's appointments have favored private development. I don't think either party is protecting the environment which is really my point. If you want to bash republicans go right ahead, but the truth is both parties are to blame.

Herons are eating a lot of fish. I privately stock a pond and I know this as fact; numerous heron marks are on the fish we catch there. I have busted Herons on several occasions flying off with one of my fish.

In a stream environment without the benefit of deeper water, it doesn't take long for a single heron to wipe out a recent stocking. This was evidenced from the trout location study when investigators found a pile of fish tags underneath a heron rookery. If you want to debate stocking vs wild trout management, I will say we have a long way to go with public perception of trout fishing in the state.

There is tremendous Canada geese over population, yet people continue to feed them, attract more of them and perpetuate the problem. I guess what we need is some old fashion predation. Any one for reintroducing the the timber wolf or mountain lion to Pennsylvania?? My problem is with people praising the over population of these animals as some sort of ecological triumph. It really isn't.